All the folding points are available to see from the official Stanford stats or Extremeoverclocking (who pull them from Stanford). Nobody can manipulate those figures, even Stanford have a policy that points cannot/will not be changed after entering the stats database, except for deletion.It's then a simple matter of comparing the Cure earned from those points with the Cure actually paid out, which is available from the pool.

Can the curecoin team (or yourself if you feel inclined) map out this instruction with screenshots for future buyers/folders to compare these stats/find any inconsistencies for themselves? That's the question a serious buyer would ask. Just saying. Without that this is blind faith.

I seriously doubt anybody on the Curecoin dev team would have the time or inclination to do this, considering it's a fairly simple task for any individual to check themselves.

You just contradicted yourself, saying it would take a dev an inordinate amount of time yet simple for *any* individual to do. There's about a hundred KB articles on how to connect an Office365 mailbox to your phone, but not a single one on how to proof check a premined cryptocurrency for its word of mouth transparency/integrity? Ok. If transparency is really their only defense for it being a centralized coin, an automated system that easily and readily displays that cryptocurrency's integrity should been developed first thing to fortify that impression for new buyers. Or at the very least, a simple guide on how to do that manually.

All the folding points are available to see from the official Stanford stats or Extremeoverclocking (who pull them from Stanford). Nobody can manipulate those figures, even Stanford have a policy that points cannot/will not be changed after entering the stats database, except for deletion.It's then a simple matter of comparing the Cure earned from those points with the Cure actually paid out, which is available from the pool.

Can the curecoin team (or yourself if you feel inclined) map out this instruction with screenshots for future buyers/folders to compare these stats/find any inconsistencies for themselves? That's the question a serious buyer would ask. Just saying. Without that this is blind faith.

I seriously doubt anybody on the Curecoin dev team would have the time or inclination to do this, considering it's a fairly simple task for any individual to check themselves.

You just contradicted yourself, saying it would take a dev an inordinate amount of time yet simple for *any* individual to do. There's about a hundred KB articles on how to connect an Office365 mailbox to your phone, but not a single one on how to proof check a premined cryptocurrency for its word of mouth transparency/integrity? Ok. If transparency is really their only defense for it being a centralized coin, an automated system that easily and readily displays that cryptocurrency's integrity should been developed first thing to fortify that impression for new buyers. Or at the very least, a simple guide on how to do that manually.

No I didn't contradict myself, and where did I use the word "inordinate"? If you've been following this coins journey, you will know that the dev team is tiny, and they don't have any spare time to do extra work. The point of this coin is to provide some cost benefit to donors participating in the f@h project, with a view to increasing those donor numbers. Most people with an association with this coin, probably aren't as hungup about the centralized nature of the coin as the general crypto community is.

All the folding points are available to see from the official Stanford stats or Extremeoverclocking (who pull them from Stanford). Nobody can manipulate those figures, even Stanford have a policy that points cannot/will not be changed after entering the stats database, except for deletion.It's then a simple matter of comparing the Cure earned from those points with the Cure actually paid out, which is available from the pool.

Can the curecoin team (or yourself if you feel inclined) map out this instruction with screenshots for future buyers/folders to compare these stats/find any inconsistencies for themselves? That's the question a serious buyer would ask. Just saying. Without that this is blind faith.

I seriously doubt anybody on the Curecoin dev team would have the time or inclination to do this, considering it's a fairly simple task for any individual to check themselves.

You just contradicted yourself, saying it would take a dev an inordinate amount of time yet simple for *any* individual to do. There's about a hundred KB articles on how to connect an Office365 mailbox to your phone, but not a single one on how to proof check a premined cryptocurrency for its word of mouth transparency/integrity? Ok. If transparency is really their only defense for it being a centralized coin, an automated system that easily and readily displays that cryptocurrency's integrity should been developed first thing to fortify that impression for new buyers. Or at the very least, a simple guide on how to do that manually.

Most people with an association with this coin, probably aren't as hungup about the centralized nature of the coin as the general crypto community is.

And that's exactly the problem with the popularity of this coin. It is not targeting the key principle of cyrptocurrency (the trust that comes with decentralization), which in my opinion, can be dealt with by the matter of the guide I asked for, which would in turn would demonstrate the integrity / transparency of this coin. I understand that's the point of CC 2.0 and Sigma, but can't this be easily done in the meantime?

I've asked in the past for people to join the curecoin official forum where we can have organized discussion that is much easier for me to track what has been responded to and what has not. Frankly I find using one thread as an info and support channel is extremely inefficient so if you are looking for "are we alive" checks then > Curecoin official forum, curecoin team facebook page, curecoin team twitter, various other channels if you like. Wuffy68 is usually putting out some videos for the promotion on youtube...

To answer the above post from BTCTT

On curecoin 2.x , Vorksholk recently coded a new block chain tech and is now a patent holder of the new tech. He has mentioned using this new platform for cc2. As you can imagine that amount of work plus college is keeping him busy on a release for 2.0 .

Again on updates - look on other channels

Radio silence falls under same as above

I apologize that you feel I was giving you the finger! Seriously, join our facebook group or something - we check that and you can have a conversation with us on almost any day of the week, and also our forum has quite a few people that check it daily and offer help if they can. Most of those people will contact me or get you in contact with me. Im a pretty civil person - Im likely to flip someone off for cutting me off on the road but I have a lot of respect for curecoin supporters. Even if people are just supporting for their own monetary gains they likely see the sense that it makes to reward coins for medical research and are therefor still helping research indirectly.

Your belief was probably a good gut intuition, I have no intention of giving up on seeing team curecoin pushing 40+ petaflops of research power. After hitting rank 4 in the world on the largest research DCN there is you tend to want to see if you can get farther. Currently if you look at EOC stats we are projected to hit rank 3 in a couple months. Rank 2 will require a bit more work but we will get there. Rank 1 will be tricky against corporate sponsored EVGA but when we get there it will be a battle that will shake the world of science in a positive way as competition spurs research in these large teams.

----------------

On another note, I hear there is confusion about a spreadsheet. That spreadsheet called "100 years of mintage" shows only the details of the SHA side of the coin. There are other spreadsheets that I think is what is being asked about. Some are complete /finished and one is ongoing. I will update those and make the links a bit easier to find. - edit some things to point out on that spreadsheet 1 the folding coins are all in the premine - the base folding pay of 7488 is noted and halves with the rest of the coin reward. You can do your own math to verify those numbers. 2 this spreadsheet is made without figures of the proof of stake vs pow blocks ratio as its impossible to predict how much of a hybrid coin will be mined via pow or pos. These figures assume all block are SHA 256 POW. The hybrid factor reduces the coin count. These are things Im under the assumption someone would know if they are reading that spreadsheet. That spreadsheet is something I used to help build the source code. You can find a lot of those numbers in the source code that you can double check on the github.

I'm working (completely separately from CureCoin) on a project that I believe will be a significant step forward for blockchain security for alternative cryptocurrencies. It's an interesting (and much more secure + scalable) solution to cross-blockchain security than anything that exists today (namely merge-mining). We're going to use the technology for CureCoin 2.0 (for blockchain security reasons including preventing compromised university keys from being able to fork the network), and waiting on that technology to be available is the current delay.

Aside from some nips and tucks, the cc 2.0 sourcecode is primarily only waiting on an overhaul to its consensus mechanism. Merkle signatures work, the mini-blockchain works (but needs some tweaks), the networking code will be optimized a bit but works, etc. etc. To my knowledge, all non-display-related bugs in the current (few months ago) alpha release were related to block desynchronization. This overhaul can't be done until the project I'm working on (which unfortunately I can't give any details on right now) comes to fruition, because the cc2.0 consensus code will be heavily based on the a working version of that project. As soon as that project goes into public alpha/beta, cc2.0 will have a beta release which works with that project's alpha/beta network, and will closely mirror that project's development cycle leading up to that project's launch. CureCoin will be the first blockchain to adopt that new technology, so expect some hiccups during the beta(s). Unfortunately, I can't provide a meaningful timeline on that other project. We wanted to have a working (internal/private) alpha of that other project a few weeks ago, and we're close to getting that up and functioning, but it's a ways off from public release (few months? we'll see.).

I kept waiting to make any kind of announcement until I had more concrete details about a release schedule for that other project. It sucks to come here and say "we're working on something cool, sorry I can't give you any details or timeline," but it's been long enough that that kind of announcement is necessary.

There is always an option for releasing cc2.0 in-line with the previous plans (standard consensus algorithm), and then do a hard-fork to it to implement this new security technology when it becomes available and usable. However, causing a network hard-fork only a few months after launch isn't ideal, and the codebase would likely forever live with the solution "bolted-on after launch" rather than cleanly integrated from the beginning. This wouldn't be the end of the world--any existing blockchains which adopt the security technology will be required to do a similar hardfork. Given the complexity of both projects though, releasing a blockchain that will hard-fork a few months later is certainly not very graceful.

Well good to have some feedback even if i think it's late and fall short of any significant information.

So if I understand correctly you now are working on a third coin on top of CC 2.0 and SigmaX?

you can imagine that it makes me a little worried... If you don't have enough time for CC Why taking other projects? (please don't answer that, I know you going to say you going to implement the tech on CC 2.0 but still I disaprove)

I have say that already 2.5 years ago and I was correct, having 1 dev. working on CC is just not efficient and a receipt for disaster.

The competition in the Bitcoin world is tough and unless you guys are ready to fight the battle this project will fail...

I highly suggest that:

1. You keep us up to date (every 2 weeks or at least every month)2. You get us a real plan with dates and targets

I look at all your posts on Facebook, Twitter and your forum etc. What I see is poor marketing done by a 20 years old, fun but not really relevant.

On your forum their is no update I check it every month (IRC I went a few times got NO reply)...

If you post an update post it everywhere and it should take a few minutes to do!

I'm sorry to say that but if I knew this project will be run by 3 amateurs who don't even have a compass in the middle of the desert... I would have invested in Gridcoin!

I don't criticised this project just for the fun of it... I have better stuff to do to be honest. So please integrate this 2 points above minimum.

You have an opportunity of a life time here! As far as I'm concern we should be number 1 already and this coin should be so expensive that people would invest money in ASIC mining for protein folding, anything short of that is poor management from your part!

I'm sure if Satoshi is still around he is looking at this project with interest... Don't let us down!

It sucks to come here and say "we're working on something cool, sorry I can't give you any details or timeline,"

Well, yes but it's still 1000x better than not saying anything and letting people think the project is dead...So thanks for giving us some (good) news! And please continue to do so at least once a month. You have created a community who trusted you and decided to follow you, you have now a responsibility towards us. It only takes 5 minutes to give a heartbeat...

So if I understand correctly you now are working on a third coin on top of CC 2.0 and SigmaX?

No, I think he is working on a new technology that could potentially be adopted by any other altcoin to increase security. CC2.0 will be the first altcoin to implement it (and others won't be able to simply "steal" it, without paying royalties, since it is patented).

After hitting rank 4 in the world on the largest research DCN there is you tend to want to see if you can get farther. Currently if you look at EOC stats we are projected to hit rank 3 in a couple months. Rank 2 will require a bit more work but we will get there. Rank 1 will be tricky against corporate sponsored EVGA but when we get there it will be a battle that will shake the world of science in a positive way as competition spurs research in these large teams.

You have to understand that if your aim is to Rank #1 you'll need to "steal" GPU-owners from other altcoins and have them fold instead of mining. And this will not happen unless folding becomes more profitable (though CC) than mining the other altcoins.

I have say that already 2.5 years ago and I was correct, having 1 dev. working on CC is just not efficient and a receipt for disaster.

There are indeed some management problems:

1) Not getting help. To speed-up the development you should indeed look for other developers to help you on non-critical code (for example the http://stats.curecoinfolding.com/daily.html server is "under maintenance" for months now) so that you can focus on critical stuff. Otherwise you might end up being very proud to have developed 100% alone by yourself a technically amazing coin but that will never skyrocket and bring more people to folding (nor make you rich) because it was released too late.

2) Too many upgrades between CC1.0 and CC2.0. It's better to release a new version of the coin offering new features every 6 months than waiting 3 years to release something including all. At every new release the price of the coin increases so you can pump up its value higher and higher instead of letting it decaying. So removing the premine and adding the Merkle Trees would have been way enough.

3) Adding Certification Authorities before having a written agreement from Pande Group that they will accept to be one. Moreover even if the new patented technology will harden the security, I still think that having third parties (the Certification Authorities) will only add noise in the loop and will necessarily create problems someday...

4) Adding last-minute features to CC2.0. If you continue so, CC2.0 will never be released.

There won’t be a third coin. The technology Vorksholk is referencing is meant to be a part of CC 2.0/SigmaX. It was discovered to be a key component during development of the SigmaX branch (it happened to be part of ongoing work Vorksholk’s been involved with on an unrelated project as Cygnus and Vork indicated).

As most followers know, there are two devs (one dedicated to blockchain and one to the folding pool). We do have a third developer signing up to help (a CS prof). We will make a follow-up announcement once his assignments become official.

We do have a roadmap (parts of it have been a moving target, true). We use project management and bug tracking software internally. We can work on posting something more detailed here, or in the CureCoin homepage. Incidentally we have a new homepage and forum about to launch in September.

Point taken the social media posts & content verge on amateurish (thanks for the input). Professional videos, marketing content, professional social media managers and original art can be very costly. We’ve had some people get enthusiastic about making professional videos and providing market consulting - then go silent after learning there wasn’t an overnight payday with CURE. We welcome CureCoin holders and folders to produce content and share the vision of CureCoin on social media (Dogecoin has 121,000 hits on Youtube - we have 663. I guarantee the Doge core team didn't produce all that media content

We have five (5) social media channels to maintain along with user support on the forum and IRC. Twitter is so fluid, social media managers have to just “react” to current events (like Olympic coverage). For major blockchain and FINTECH related conferences, we've tried to time our posts with individual speaker’s schedules (It would be nice if all “20 year olds” were that clever, no?).

We have tens of thousands of views per month and thousands of "organically grown" followers (many with hundreds of thousands of followers themselves). We have over 8000 registered accounts on the folding pool and over 4800 registered folders. There are over 11000 wallet addresses showing on Chainz. We produce 8%-10% of Folding@home PPD points depending on the day. We also work hard to attract a diverse crowd - which sometimes means taking time to explain FAH and CureCoin to a college kid in Ghana who wants to get his teacher to install it in their lab.

Did I mention the Cloud Folding Service that has demonstrated people from around the world are willing to pay for folding power in exchange for CURE?

What you probably haven’t paid attention to is the work it takes to bring some the Stanford published papers down to layman's terms. As part of boosting CureCoin on social media, we also transcribe some of the work being done by Folding@home and Pande Labs. They don’t do the best job in bringing their results to a non-technical level - it reads like gobbledygook to the dilettante participant. This is a challenge, but Pande group has acknowledged several posts and articles we’ve made in bringing their work “down-to-earth”.

We've converted 100’s of thousands of CURE into donations across seven charities and growing (mostly medical and education related - one literally life-saving). We've started talking to organizations about getting a 501(c)3 sponsorship to make donations and cloud folding officially part of our charitable giving model (so you can write off some of these CURE if you want to donate them to the causes we support, or donate to commission Cloud Folding Service).

You're right, we have a great opportunity; we have a coin that works, for a purpose it was designed for - providing a real-world benefit. We agree with the the lack of frequent releases (we’ve all perused “Code Complete”), but we also want to get it right.

It's great to take time to explain F@H and CC to kids in Ghana but you must keep in mind that one single 5-high-end-GPU rig that folds 24/7 will bring more computing power and will therefore help more F@H than 1000 folders using the idle computing power of their CPU-based desktop or their smartphone at night.

You can check on Extreme Overclocking that out of the 345 people who are folding at the moment in the CC team, the top-10 folders bring 2/3 of the team's folding power.

I think therefore that you should use your time to focus first on what's needed to increase the coin's value in order to "steal" GPU-equipped miners from other altcoins and convert them to folding instead of mining. Many of them mine the most profitable coin so as soon as they'll see that folding CC is more profitable than what they are mining they'll quickly come by themselves without you needing to make any advertisement for F@H. Then it'll be time to focus on how to bring CC to masses.

If just 10 folders bring 2/3 of the team's folding power, imagine that hundreds of GPU-miners and some GPU-farms convert to folding instead of mining and join the team

Having a super-secure coin is one thing but to bring investors you need to do proper marketing and communication, show professionalism by displaying roadmaps and respecting release deadlines, etc. You have to show them that the coin is viable and is a better investment than other altcoins. [And remove Certification Authorities to have a decentralized coin ]

So besides the CS prof you should also look for somebody with solid marketing/management/stock exchange background to help you increasing trust in CC and CC's value...

I am happy to announce we have a new client ready for beta testing. This client makes some important improvements over the v7.4.4 release. In addition to a number of bug fixes, this release adds better support for matching the number of CPUs available on a system to the number of CPUs projects can actually handle. This will get some Folding@home clients, which are currently not getting work, folding again.

We also have added our first 64-bit release for Windows. Due to the number of Windows clients, we have prioritized the Windows beta test, but the OSX release should be available for testing soon. Finally, we have made improvements to GPU detection but more works remains. We hope to solve the current problems with multi-GPU detection during this open-beta test.

Our internal testing team has worked extensively testing this new release. We believe it is in good shape but it is essential that we testing the code on a broader variety of machines. If you do run in to problems with this beta software please post a message at foldingforum.org with your OS version, the client package you installed, what you expected to happen and what actually happen. Posting log files is also very helpful.

As always, we greatly appreciate the efforts of those who help us test our software. Correctly functioning and efficient software is a huge part of making Folding@home successful and ultimately finding cures for diseases. We look forward to hearing from you in the forums!

I am happy to announce we have a new client ready for beta testing. This client makes some important improvements over the v7.4.4 release. In addition to a number of bug fixes, this release adds better support for matching the number of CPUs available on a system to the number of CPUs projects can actually handle. This will get some Folding@home clients, which are currently not getting work, folding again.

We also have added our first 64-bit release for Windows. Due to the number of Windows clients, we have prioritized the Windows beta test, but the OSX release should be available for testing soon. Finally, we have made improvements to GPU detection but more works remains. We hope to solve the current problems with multi-GPU detection during this open-beta test.

Our internal testing team has worked extensively testing this new release. We believe it is in good shape but it is essential that we testing the code on a broader variety of machines. If you do run in to problems with this beta software please post a message at foldingforum.org with your OS version, the client package you installed, what you expected to happen and what actually happen. Posting log files is also very helpful.

As always, we greatly appreciate the efforts of those who help us test our software. Correctly functioning and efficient software is a huge part of making Folding@home successful and ultimately finding cures for diseases. We look forward to hearing from you in the forums!